Gun Control Is Tax-Subsidized Marketing for Illegal Submachine Guns
Because they're so easy to produce, submachine guns also became a natural go-to for non-political manufacture in countries that have strict gun control regimes. Brazil seems to be an especially fertile source for homemade automatic weapons. There's an online cottage industry in tracking Brazilian police announcements of gun confiscations and posting photos of the creative copies of commercially produced weapons—as well as weirdly innovative original designs.
This is a fine place for this quote from The Weapon:
I acquired a black-market
weapon.(Sales are all registered, but for a small premium of 50%, one
may buy a new pistol not far from the spaceport. They come in by the
shipload, as they do anywhere the local rulers utter magic incantations
to keep them out. Never let your religious beliefs get in the way of
the law of supply and demand.)
And that's not counting the 'You can make this with home workshop tools' factor.
Thursday, November 03, 2016
"More wonders of Socialism, comrade!
The Revolution(and hunger for you commoners) forever!"
Some Venezuelan city dwellers are trying to grow their own produce to offset the country's severe shortages following socialist President Nicolas Maduro's calls for "food sovereignty."
But in a country where families are going hungry as a result of government mismanagement and sky-high inflation, many view the "Great Agro-Venezuela Mission" with skepticism.
Gee, why might that be?
"How are you going to tell someone with no space for a plot to grow [their own food]?" asked de Leandro, whose family-owned farm was expropriated, like many other businesses, under former president Hugo Chavez's nationalization program.
Some Venezuelans try to look on the bright side of the experiment: Producing their own food can reduce the time spent on the streets of Caracas, where crime is skyrocketing. For de Leandro, who was once kidnapped for ransom, this is a comforting thought. She grows a stunning array of vegetables on one of her terraces.
I find myself wondering just what the 'stunning array' consists of. And the quantity.
But who cares about hungry people, right? Socialism Forever!
Some Venezuelan city dwellers are trying to grow their own produce to offset the country's severe shortages following socialist President Nicolas Maduro's calls for "food sovereignty."
But in a country where families are going hungry as a result of government mismanagement and sky-high inflation, many view the "Great Agro-Venezuela Mission" with skepticism.
Gee, why might that be?
"How are you going to tell someone with no space for a plot to grow [their own food]?" asked de Leandro, whose family-owned farm was expropriated, like many other businesses, under former president Hugo Chavez's nationalization program.
Some Venezuelans try to look on the bright side of the experiment: Producing their own food can reduce the time spent on the streets of Caracas, where crime is skyrocketing. For de Leandro, who was once kidnapped for ransom, this is a comforting thought. She grows a stunning array of vegetables on one of her terraces.
I find myself wondering just what the 'stunning array' consists of. And the quantity.
But who cares about hungry people, right? Socialism Forever!
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
A little more on the "WE define what a right is!" SJB
in this post by Miguel.
Commenter Charles mentioned something I'd noticed and hadn't said anything about:
Notice that not only is the right to bear arms missing (and free speech, property, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness), but there are no rights at all listed? There are only entitlements. There is nothing government must refrain from doing to you, only things the government must provide you. SJWs call these entitlements "positive" rights and natural rights or human rights "negative" rights.
Yeah, I noticed.
It’s a creative new argument, and also one that’s very wrong. I can see why people are doing it: there’s a growing sensitivity to human rights, and suggesting that something is an inalienable entitlement makes it seem ironclad.
and
Checks on gun ownership, to varying degrees, are perfectly acceptable because, again, owning a gun isn’t a human right, and it’s not a civil right either when its ownership infringes upon the enjoyment of life for other people
and
The right wants to cheapen the notion of human rights with this kind of rhetoric, while also trying to score points. It’s a pretty pathetic line of logic, and hopefully they’ll figure that out sooner rather than later.
'inalienable entitlement'. Really? Entitlements(however the hell this idiot actually defines it) which require others to provide a good or service, is the same thing as a right which does not(I don't count that 'infringes upon enjoyment' bullshit as either one)
Never any mention of the right to defend your life, and those with you. Same as Miguel, I suspect because if you admit that that right exists, people will want the MEANS with which to defend themselves. And that's not tolerable.
After all, having the means and will might infringe on the life enjoyment of the rapists and robbers and murderers.
Commenter Charles mentioned something I'd noticed and hadn't said anything about:
Notice that not only is the right to bear arms missing (and free speech, property, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness), but there are no rights at all listed? There are only entitlements. There is nothing government must refrain from doing to you, only things the government must provide you. SJWs call these entitlements "positive" rights and natural rights or human rights "negative" rights.
Yeah, I noticed.
It’s a creative new argument, and also one that’s very wrong. I can see why people are doing it: there’s a growing sensitivity to human rights, and suggesting that something is an inalienable entitlement makes it seem ironclad.
and
Checks on gun ownership, to varying degrees, are perfectly acceptable because, again, owning a gun isn’t a human right, and it’s not a civil right either when its ownership infringes upon the enjoyment of life for other people
and
The right wants to cheapen the notion of human rights with this kind of rhetoric, while also trying to score points. It’s a pretty pathetic line of logic, and hopefully they’ll figure that out sooner rather than later.
'inalienable entitlement'. Really? Entitlements(however the hell this idiot actually defines it) which require others to provide a good or service, is the same thing as a right which does not(I don't count that 'infringes upon enjoyment' bullshit as either one)
Never any mention of the right to defend your life, and those with you. Same as Miguel, I suspect because if you admit that that right exists, people will want the MEANS with which to defend themselves. And that's not tolerable.
After all, having the means and will might infringe on the life enjoyment of the rapists and robbers and murderers.
The Dark and Fascist State of New Jersey strikes again
And the cops involved in this aren't fit to wear a badge.
And this, children, is why you should stay out of third-world shitholes like New Jersey.
And this, children, is why you should stay out of third-world shitholes like New Jersey.
Two more things on the Clinton mess(the current one):
The FBI never asked Hillary Clinton's top aides to turn over all the computers and smartphones they used while Clinton was secretary of state, an omission that is now triggering questions from Republican
lawmakers.
While the FBI made a concerted effort to obtain all the computers that were used as Clinton's private server and ultimately asked two of Clinton's lawyers for laptops used to review her email messages, investigators never requested or demanded all equipment her top staffers used for work purposes during her four years at State, a source familiar with the investigation told POLITICO.
...
The decision left the FBI at least partially dependent on the aides' attorneys' decisions about which messages were work-related and therefore might have contained classified information the agents were looking for. Those messages were turned over to State in response to its request last year.
But surely they could trust them, right?[/sarcasm]
And the other, which if correct is really big:
New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence “to put Hillary (Clinton) and her crew away for life,” NYPD sources told True Pundit.
NYPD sources said Clinton’s “crew” also included several unnamed yet implicated members of Congress in addition to her aides and insiders.
...
But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:
That wouldn't surprise me. While there would be lots of pressure not to, lots of LE agencies don't exactly have the most friendly relationship with the EffingBI to start with; if they thought the Bureau was going to/trying to hide something like this for political reasons, well, that could get downright nasty.
While the FBI made a concerted effort to obtain all the computers that were used as Clinton's private server and ultimately asked two of Clinton's lawyers for laptops used to review her email messages, investigators never requested or demanded all equipment her top staffers used for work purposes during her four years at State, a source familiar with the investigation told POLITICO.
...
The decision left the FBI at least partially dependent on the aides' attorneys' decisions about which messages were work-related and therefore might have contained classified information the agents were looking for. Those messages were turned over to State in response to its request last year.
But surely they could trust them, right?[/sarcasm]
And the other, which if correct is really big:
New York Police Department detectives and prosecutors working an alleged underage sexting case against former Congressman Anthony Weiner have turned over a newly-found laptop he shared with wife Huma Abedin to the FBI with enough evidence “to put Hillary (Clinton) and her crew away for life,” NYPD sources told True Pundit.
NYPD sources said Clinton’s “crew” also included several unnamed yet implicated members of Congress in addition to her aides and insiders.
...
But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:
- Money laundering
- Child exploitation
- Sex crimes with minors (children)
- Perjury
- Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
- Obstruction of justice
- Other felony crimes
That wouldn't surprise me. While there would be lots of pressure not to, lots of LE agencies don't exactly have the most friendly relationship with the EffingBI to start with; if they thought the Bureau was going to/trying to hide something like this for political reasons, well, that could get downright nasty.
The hell 'Nobody wants to take your guns'
She wants them, and your magazines, and anything else she can take.
The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”
This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?
The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.
...
That tells us why Hillary Clinton now considers repeal of a seemingly obscure, eleven-year-old statute a major objective of her campaign. She’s picking up where Bill left off, in an effort to impose draconian standards on gun owners, without engaging in the democratic process.
The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”
This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?
The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.
...
That tells us why Hillary Clinton now considers repeal of a seemingly obscure, eleven-year-old statute a major objective of her campaign. She’s picking up where Bill left off, in an effort to impose draconian standards on gun owners, without engaging in the democratic process.
The phone is dead,
mourned, it is.
A Nokia 1600, bought ten years ago. Still on the original battery, it's been used and dropped and rained on, and never stopped working. Until 'The network will no longer support it after the first of the year.'
Which led to 'We'll send a new SIM card that'll keep it working until then.' Except it didn't, it wouldn't register and the system automatically shut the old one down. Permanently. Which meant new phone and number(still thinking of who/where I need to notify).
You get used to having one with you. And since this happened just before a weekend involving travel, it meant not having that safety blanket of "If anything happens I can call for assistance."
Modern living.
A Nokia 1600, bought ten years ago. Still on the original battery, it's been used and dropped and rained on, and never stopped working. Until 'The network will no longer support it after the first of the year.'
Which led to 'We'll send a new SIM card that'll keep it working until then.' Except it didn't, it wouldn't register and the system automatically shut the old one down. Permanently. Which meant new phone and number(still thinking of who/where I need to notify).
You get used to having one with you. And since this happened just before a weekend involving travel, it meant not having that safety blanket of "If anything happens I can call for assistance."
Modern living.
Snork...
Happy Halloweiner, the night when Anthony Weiner's undead penis rises from its grave to bite Hillary's campaign. The stroking dead is
apparently impervious to silver bullets or garlic, and unlike vampires
it does show up in photographs, on cell phones across the globe.
Well, isn't this freaking wonderful?
According to German authorities, nearly 1,400 anti-Semitic hate crimes were registered in 2015. German MP Volker Beck had accused the authorities of under-reporting antisemitic crimes in order to hide the real extent of Antisemitism in Germany. Incidents targeting Israel or Israelis are often not counted as anti-Semitic crimes.
In 2014, when 3 Palestinians were arrested for fire-bombing a synagogue in the Western German city of Wuppertal, the trial court refused to see any antisemitic motives behind the crime and the arsonists walked free from court on probation. The judge regarded the crime merely as an attempt to “call attention” to the Gaza Conflict between Israel and the terrorist outfit Hamas.
Bomb a synagogue, "No big deal." Damn.
Well, isn't this freaking wonderful?
According to German authorities, nearly 1,400 anti-Semitic hate crimes were registered in 2015. German MP Volker Beck had accused the authorities of under-reporting antisemitic crimes in order to hide the real extent of Antisemitism in Germany. Incidents targeting Israel or Israelis are often not counted as anti-Semitic crimes.
In 2014, when 3 Palestinians were arrested for fire-bombing a synagogue in the Western German city of Wuppertal, the trial court refused to see any antisemitic motives behind the crime and the arsonists walked free from court on probation. The judge regarded the crime merely as an attempt to “call attention” to the Gaza Conflict between Israel and the terrorist outfit Hamas.
Bomb a synagogue, "No big deal." Damn.
Tuesday, November 01, 2016
No, no chance of corruption or crooked here, nooo...
In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.
...
Kadzik... Kadzik... where have we heard that name?
Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, "Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary's Benghazi Hearing" in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony?
It was Peter Kadzik.
So, union members, what all might your reps lying to you about, in the service of the Democrat Party?
Sounds like Estonia trusts its people more than this .gov does us.
...
Kadzik... Kadzik... where have we heard that name?
Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, "Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary's Benghazi Hearing" in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony?
It was Peter Kadzik.
So, union members, what all might your reps lying to you about, in the service of the Democrat Party?
Sounds like Estonia trusts its people more than this .gov does us.
Monday, October 31, 2016
You'll notice that the right of self-defense is not mentioned
in this bullshit.
Can't have that, can we?
And one of the prime screams of these people:
Checks on gun ownership, to varying degrees, are perfectly acceptable because, again, owning a gun isn’t a human right, and it’s not a civil right either when its ownership infringes upon the enjoyment of life for other people.
"I have a right for you to never make me uncomfortable, because that infringes on my enjoyment!"
A human right has to do with something intrinsic to who you are as a human being, and your most basic needs. Healthcare, food, housing, and water are human rights. They are all critical things that human beings need to stay alive. Access to reproductive health services is a human right. The ability to participate freely in society regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or disability status is a human right. These are things society is supposed to guarantee to us because we are part of society, and these things are integral to our very identities.Did you notice what is missing? Self-Defense. The most basic right to save our lives, something hardwired in nervous our system, something even animals have. And Ms. Smith does it on purpose for one simple reason: Admitting one has the unalienable right to defend ourselves also means to have the best tools available to do so and those tools would be guns.
Can't have that, can we?
And one of the prime screams of these people:
Checks on gun ownership, to varying degrees, are perfectly acceptable because, again, owning a gun isn’t a human right, and it’s not a civil right either when its ownership infringes upon the enjoyment of life for other people.
"I have a right for you to never make me uncomfortable, because that infringes on my enjoyment!"
From a Brit news site: Why Comey reopened the investigation
Combination of things according to this:
James Comey's decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.
...
But Comey's decision to reopen the case was more than an effort to heal the wound he inflicted on the FBI.
He was also worried that after the presidential election, Republicans in Congress would mount a probe of how he had granted Hillary political favoritism.
So agents pissed at him have been causing enough pressure, and enough people resigning(which I've not heard anything about previously; 'threats to resign', yes, but not actual paperwork), combined with "This is making me look like crap!", added to fear of a real investigation into all this.
Hey, Comey, know what would've prevented this? Doing your damned job honestly in the first place.
James Comey's decision to revive the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server and her handling of classified material came after he could no longer resist mounting pressure by mutinous agents in the FBI, including some of his top deputies, according to a source close to the embattled FBI director.
...
But Comey's decision to reopen the case was more than an effort to heal the wound he inflicted on the FBI.
He was also worried that after the presidential election, Republicans in Congress would mount a probe of how he had granted Hillary political favoritism.
So agents pissed at him have been causing enough pressure, and enough people resigning(which I've not heard anything about previously; 'threats to resign', yes, but not actual paperwork), combined with "This is making me look like crap!", added to fear of a real investigation into all this.
Hey, Comey, know what would've prevented this? Doing your damned job honestly in the first place.
I'm glad they're not dropping the suit,
because A: these bastards need to be sued, B: threatening their budget seems to be the only thing that gets their attention.
If this is true, there are a bunch of people at the VA who need to be decorating trees.
In my client’s situation, he handles all of his own finances. The VA does not dispute this. Rather, when I finally got a representative from the VA on the line, she informed us that the VA, on its own initiative, placed him into “supervised direct payment status”. When I inquired as to what “supervised direct payment status” was, the representative stated that it is where the veteran handles his/her own financial affairs but they “watch the veteran’s financial accounts.” While the VA contended that they sent out a letter about this status being imposed on my client, my client never received such a letter and they acknowledged that it does not mention anything about the loss of the veteran’s Second Amendment rights, but that the VA has been imposing such since 2013.
No due process is provided. The representative acknowledged that my client never received a hearing and that the determination that my client was incompetent was made solely by a VA official reviewing his case. She stated that he could have appealed the determination when he received the original letter, but the time has since past to appeal. Remember, this is the letter that my client never received and which makes no mention of the loss of one’s Second Amendment rights…
If this is true, there are a bunch of people at the VA who need to be decorating trees.
In my client’s situation, he handles all of his own finances. The VA does not dispute this. Rather, when I finally got a representative from the VA on the line, she informed us that the VA, on its own initiative, placed him into “supervised direct payment status”. When I inquired as to what “supervised direct payment status” was, the representative stated that it is where the veteran handles his/her own financial affairs but they “watch the veteran’s financial accounts.” While the VA contended that they sent out a letter about this status being imposed on my client, my client never received such a letter and they acknowledged that it does not mention anything about the loss of the veteran’s Second Amendment rights, but that the VA has been imposing such since 2013.
No due process is provided. The representative acknowledged that my client never received a hearing and that the determination that my client was incompetent was made solely by a VA official reviewing his case. She stated that he could have appealed the determination when he received the original letter, but the time has since past to appeal. Remember, this is the letter that my client never received and which makes no mention of the loss of one’s Second Amendment rights…
We can trust the Justice Dept. and the EffingBI, sure
Senior-level Justice Department officials pushed back heavily on an ongoing FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation, according to a
bombshell report from The Wall Street Journal.
The newspaper laid out numerous examples, based on law enforcement sources, of senior DOJ officials intervening to quash the probe.
That's one part of this. Now add in this:
FBI agents charged with investigating Hillary Clinton’s private emails server knew for weeks that investigators had discovered potential new evidence against her during a separate investigation, but waited to brief FBI Director James Comey, according to a report from the Washington Post.
...
Given that the agents knew of the emails for weeks, its not yet clear why they waited so long before telling Comey.
Now I refer you to this a ways down in the first story:
More pushback occurred in August, when a senior DOJ official contacted the FBI’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, to voice his displeasure that New York field office agents were continuing the investigation even though the DOJ had declined to provide investigative support.
The official was “very pissed off” that the FBI was continuing its efforts, according to The Journal.
...
McCabe figures prominently in The Journal’s reporting and in the overlapping Clintonworld investigations.
It was revealed last week that McCabe’s wife, Jill, received nearly $470,000 in contributions to a
Virginia state senate campaign last year from Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s super PAC.
McAuliffe is a close Clinton ally and is the subject of a separate FBI investigation.
Can you say 'At the very least, huge appearance of conflict of interest'? Now, heard something earlier today, that some agent/s went to Comey and said "We've found this, but we don't have a warrant to get the e-mails." I didn't catch much, but if that's the case why the hell wouldn't they have gotten a warrant? Or is it a case of "We asked for one but the upper level didn't get it." Gee, with the #2 guy at the EffingBI quite possibly compromised, why might that have happened?
I could be wrong, it could have been some simple screwup; I really doubt it.
The newspaper laid out numerous examples, based on law enforcement sources, of senior DOJ officials intervening to quash the probe.
That's one part of this. Now add in this:
FBI agents charged with investigating Hillary Clinton’s private emails server knew for weeks that investigators had discovered potential new evidence against her during a separate investigation, but waited to brief FBI Director James Comey, according to a report from the Washington Post.
...
Given that the agents knew of the emails for weeks, its not yet clear why they waited so long before telling Comey.
Now I refer you to this a ways down in the first story:
More pushback occurred in August, when a senior DOJ official contacted the FBI’s deputy director, Andrew McCabe, to voice his displeasure that New York field office agents were continuing the investigation even though the DOJ had declined to provide investigative support.
The official was “very pissed off” that the FBI was continuing its efforts, according to The Journal.
...
McCabe figures prominently in The Journal’s reporting and in the overlapping Clintonworld investigations.
It was revealed last week that McCabe’s wife, Jill, received nearly $470,000 in contributions to a
Virginia state senate campaign last year from Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s super PAC.
McAuliffe is a close Clinton ally and is the subject of a separate FBI investigation.
Can you say 'At the very least, huge appearance of conflict of interest'? Now, heard something earlier today, that some agent/s went to Comey and said "We've found this, but we don't have a warrant to get the e-mails." I didn't catch much, but if that's the case why the hell wouldn't they have gotten a warrant? Or is it a case of "We asked for one but the upper level didn't get it." Gee, with the #2 guy at the EffingBI quite possibly compromised, why might that have happened?
I could be wrong, it could have been some simple screwup; I really doubt it.
So about 200 miles in one stretch,
with a break in the middle, is about all I can handle on a bike; a couple of joints start giving real trouble at that point. Getting old sucks.
Family problem and a lot of riding Friday-Sunday, which also involved running into someone hadn't seen for several years.
I now return to my usual yelling and bitching with
Remember when colleges actually believed in freedom of speech?
An NYU professor crusading against political correctness and student coddling was booted from the classroom last week after his colleagues complained about his “incivility,” The Post has learned.
Liberal studies prof Michael Rectenwald, 57, said he was forced Wednesday to go on paid leave for the rest of the semester.
'incivility'. Hmmm.
But Rectenwald says he began getting “dirty looks” in his department and on Wednesday figured out why: A 12-person committee calling itself the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group, including two deans,published a letter to the editor in the same paper.
“As long as he airs his views with so little appeal to evidence and civility, we must find him guilty of illogic and incivility in a community that predicates its work in great part on rational thought and the civil exchange of ideas,” they wrote.
Wonder if they complain about that when leftists trash people in the center and right?
Stupid question.
And this crap:
The same day that letter was published, Rectenwald was summoned to a meeting with his department dean and an HR representative, he says.
“They claimed they were worried about me and a couple people had expressed concern about my mental health,” Rectenwald told The Post.
My, how Soviet of them. At least they didn't have him forcibly committed for improper thought patterns.
Family problem and a lot of riding Friday-Sunday, which also involved running into someone hadn't seen for several years.
I now return to my usual yelling and bitching with
Remember when colleges actually believed in freedom of speech?
An NYU professor crusading against political correctness and student coddling was booted from the classroom last week after his colleagues complained about his “incivility,” The Post has learned.
Liberal studies prof Michael Rectenwald, 57, said he was forced Wednesday to go on paid leave for the rest of the semester.
'incivility'. Hmmm.
But Rectenwald says he began getting “dirty looks” in his department and on Wednesday figured out why: A 12-person committee calling itself the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group, including two deans,published a letter to the editor in the same paper.
“As long as he airs his views with so little appeal to evidence and civility, we must find him guilty of illogic and incivility in a community that predicates its work in great part on rational thought and the civil exchange of ideas,” they wrote.
Wonder if they complain about that when leftists trash people in the center and right?
Stupid question.
And this crap:
The same day that letter was published, Rectenwald was summoned to a meeting with his department dean and an HR representative, he says.
“They claimed they were worried about me and a couple people had expressed concern about my mental health,” Rectenwald told The Post.
My, how Soviet of them. At least they didn't have him forcibly committed for improper thought patterns.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
No, I'm not dead yet
Though right now I feel about 2/3s there.
Combine Dad coming down with needing gallbladder removed, and needing to travel around, etc., I'm beat. The surgery (finally) went well, he's recovering nicely, and I really need to catch some stuff up and then collapse.
Combine Dad coming down with needing gallbladder removed, and needing to travel around, etc., I'm beat. The surgery (finally) went well, he's recovering nicely, and I really need to catch some stuff up and then collapse.
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)